Thursday, September 4, 2014

Walter Williams says he doesn't understand.... and then proves it.

Walter
Williams shows his conservative side—being good on economics does not make one
a libertarian—in statements he made about the gay community. Williams claims
gay men should pay higher premiums for life insurance because "life
expectancy at age 20 for homosexual and bisexual men is eight to 20 years less
than for all men."He
claims the reason they don't is because gays have intimidated the insurance
companies with accusations of discrimination, but Williams would be okay with anti-gay
discrimination because "it is acceptable for insurance companies to
discriminate against smokers and the obese but not homosexuals."The
only basis for Williams's accusation is an outdated study done with old data from the
height of the AIDS crisis and limited data to one large Canadian city—hardly a
representative sample. Even the authors of the study admit current evidence does
not warrant such a. It should be noted that Williams entirely neglects to
mention the AIDS issue in that study—surely he knows how dramatically wrong
projections about AIDS turned out to be, so why leave out that important
detail?The
authors now write that "Death is a product of the way a person lives and
what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces every day. It cannot be
attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social
factor." Williams dismisses this as them having to “soft-pedal,"
because "homosexuals have far greater political power and sympathy than
smokers and the obese." Apparently the idea of changing your conclusion
because the premises were wrong never enters his mind.

There are
many reasons life expectancy varies from group to group. Life expectancy data
is among the most abused in the world. It contains many factors and dishonest
statisticians use it to prove pet theories. For instance, the Left compares
life expectancy in the US to various European nations, concluding the
differences, slightly in favor of Europe, are due to socialized health care.
They ignore higher obesity rates in the US, greater teen pregnancy rates,
differing definitions used for "live births and numerous other factors.

As the
experts, whom Williams only cites when they agree with him and dismisses when
they don't, say, life expectancy can't be attributed to one factor alone. Of
course, projections used in that study assumed things about HIV and AIDS since
proven wrong. Projected infection rates have NOT happened, and death rates
dropped dramatically. Reality changed. The authors admitted reality changed.
Walter Williams, however, prefers the older faulty data—it confirms his
prejudices.

Even John
Maynard Keynes understood the issue, as he famously said, "When the facts
change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" Williams doesn't change
his mind, he just ignores the facts. The only reason the Journal doesn't agree
with Williams, in his mind, is because evil gays are stopping it.

Other factors also could impact life expectancy—factors such as people like Williams.
Anti-gay prejudice reduces life expectancy for gay people. There is the obvious
problem of harassment and rejection and the effect it has on gay teens in
relation to suicide. But, anti-gay areas are also less likely to hire gay
people, reducing employment options and lowering income—one result of lower
income is higher death rates due to less health care. Marriage extends life
spans for gays and straights, but is still denied gay people in most states.
Anti-gay attitudes increase stress levels for gay people, causing more health
problems or encouraging alcohol and/or drugs to reduce stress.

Any
differences between the life expectancy of straight and gay men is smaller than
the differences between white and black men. Perhaps Mr. Williams should
consider giving up his "black male" lifestyle?

The
authors of the original study expressed dismay at misuse of it. They said,
"homophobic groups [misusing their study] appear more interested in
restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their
health and well being." I don't like to say someone is homophobic—it lets
him off too easy. This is not a phobia, no more than the Klan suffers blackaphobia
or Himmler had Judeophobia. It is something worse—prejudice. Being black
doesn't make one immune, nor does being a moderately decent economics professor.

What is particularly telling about Williams and his bigotry is he wrote a similar piece a decade ago. His columns are now recycled lies.Believe it or not he then used an even
more unreliable source, one thoroughly discredited since then.

That time William’s said one thing he didn’t understand was why insurance
companies weren’t discriminating against those nasty gay folk. I suggest that
an understatement; there are lots of things he doesn’t understand—in the future
he should stick to writing about what he does understand instead.

In 2003, he wrote: “Another thing I wonder about are those life insurance
company advertisements where they offer reduced rates for nonsmokers. ….” He
complained:

How come life insurance
companies don’t advertise lower life insurance premiums for heterosexuals?
After all, life insurance companies do ask applicants about other forms of
behavior that have an impact on life expectancy, such as: Are you a pilot? Do
you abuse alcohol and drugs? And do you have DUI arrests? Why not also: Are you
a homosexual? I think I know the answer. Life insurance companies would be
charged with lifestyle discrimination. But isn’t it also lifestyle
discrimination to charge higher premiums to smokers, airplane pilots, drug and
alcohol abusers, and drunk drivers? None of these lifestyles has the
devastating impact on life expectancy that homosexuality does. The only answer
I can come up with is that some forms of discrimination are politically
acceptable, while others aren’t.

Williams says that is the “only answer I can come up with”—and I believe
him. It doesn’t mean it is the ONLY answer there is, just that Williams is unwilling
to consider others. His own limitations, or lack of desire to continue
thinking, prevent more obvious answers. One is that insurance companies have not
found the assertions of Williams and anti-gay activists to be true. Perhaps
they realized that if they raised rates on gay people in general they would
lose sales and revenue to competitors. They are quite interested in the actual
facts about life span since their business depends on it. Perhaps Mr. Williams
should learn to trust insurance markets to calculate risks.

Williams preferred to use the extremist material of full-time anti-gay bigot
Paul Cameron. In 2003, he didn’t indulge his prejudices with the more
respectable, though outdated study. He went straight into the lion’s den and
used the thoroughly discredited Paul Cameron.

His first article relied on Cameron, who looked at obituaries in gay
publications in urban areas during the height of the AIDS crisis. Cameron added
up the age of death, averaged it out, and assumed it was a representative
sampling of the entire community of gay men.

I worked at a gay newspaper in the 80s
and continues to read gay papers after moving on to other things. Obituaries in
the gay press were mainly about young gay men dying of HIV related illnesses.
They were atypically young, urban and living in an unusual time. Gay
individuals from rural areas who died at 78 were not representive—not because
they didn’t exist, but because the gay press was a distinctly urban industry
focusing on young gay men.

Only 11% of individuals in the Cameron “study” died from something other than
HIV, yet this was not causing anything near 89% of deaths in the gay community.
Understandably it was the disease people worried about and was thus
over-reported. What it wasn’t, was a representative sampling.

Obituaries, however, were never meant to be a representative sampling. Only
fools or individuals with an agenda would pretend they were. Cameron had an
agenda—what is Walter’s excuse?

Cameron has a visceral hate for gay men. He founded the Family Research
Institute for the purpose of expressing unrelenting hatred against them.
Cameron lost his credentials as a psychologist for the crime of distorting
research for biased purposes. He was thrown out by both the Nebraska
Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association. The
American Sociological Association said he “has consistently misrepresented
sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism” as part of a
campaign “for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men,
substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this
research.” The Canadian Psychological Association stated “Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and
misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism.”

Cameron’s level of hate is shown by his infamous statement that the
“goal” of all gays is to make “every little boy in America grab his ankles!”
Yet, this was the man Williams found worthy of quoting to prove gays are dying
younger than normal. (See the interview with Cameron.)

Cameron cited Nazis as experts on
homosexuality and wrote an entire article in Family Research Report citing
Rudolf Höss, genocidal Kommandant of Auschwitz,
as an expert source.

Höss considered homosexuals to be active recruiters.
Indeed, his experience in the camp suggests they would engage in homosexual
behaviour. …Clearly homosexuals could and did ‘convert’ at least some of those
with whom they were housed and at a sufficient level for Hoss to consider it an
‘epidemic.’ Hoss believed that homosexuals were so brazen that they could not
be treated ‘like everyone else,’ even in prison! While most kinds of punishment
did not keep some of these addicts from persisting in their homosexual
ventures, if dealt with severely enough—and in isolation—even those addicted to
homosexuality could be managed.

That Cameron thought the Butcher of Auschwitz a reliable source says a
lot about Cameron. That Williams thought Cameron a reliable source, says a lot
about Williams.

Dodgy sources like Cameron, or misrepresenting the evidence of serious
researchers isn’t enough for Williams. His vendetta against gays goes deeper.In another column Williams trotted out the argument that if you let gay people
marry then why not let women marry a horse!That is not the argumentation of a
serious academic.

Suppose a woman and a horse appeared before San
Francisco County Clerk Nancy Alfaro applying for a marriage license, or it
might be a man and a sheep. What argument might the County Clerk have for not
issuing them a marriage license?

After
all, the woman or man might say, "Our definition of marriage includes
animals, plus my horse or my sheep will be eligible for my employee health care
benefits and my inheritance at my death." It would appear that a denial of
a marriage license would be sufficient grounds for a discrimination lawsuit.
After all, animals have rights as well as humans.

Personally, I’d like to see the horse and sheep
sign the marriage license. But, really Walter? Is this best you can come up
with? This is barely above playground accusations of “So’s your mother.”

Williams asserts gays don’t have to marry because “other rights same-sex couples
claim they’re denied can be achieved through contracts.” Is Mr. Williams
ignorant, or just prejudiced? Can spousal privilege in court be granted by
contract? NO! Can the right to sponsor a foreign-born spouse be granted by
contract? Will a private contract prevent gay couples from being taxed at
higher rates?

A serious investigation shows there are many areas where a private contract can’t
achieve the rights gay people “claim” are not granted. Williams can’t even
acknowledge gay people don’t have the same rights—he has to assert they are
just claiming they don’t.

In
another column he complained about modern culture and it’s “decay”—this is the
sign of aging, where one projects one’s own decline on society as a whole.
Immediately after lamenting the existence of “homosexual marriages” he wrote “another
measure of social deviancy is….” He then launched at attack on the homeless claiming
they are just bums.

In 2009, he again turned to the smoking
issue and nasty gays. He favorably quotes another conservative, Mark Steyn: "Smokers and the
obese may look at their gay neighbor having unprotected sex with multiple
partners, and wonder why his 'lifestyle choices' get a pass while theirs don't.
But that's the point: Tyranny is always whimsical."

I would have to ask how these neighbors
KNOW whether sex in the privacy of one’s bedroom is “unprotected” or not. It is
not my habit to peek into other people’s bedrooms when they are having sex. Apparently
Mr. Steyn seems to know what his gay neighbors do, perhaps Mr. Williams does as
well. I strongly suggest anyone living near these men make sure their drapes
are fully closed.

I've always known Williams was a conservative—not a libertarian. I just didn't
think his conservatism was this ugly.